David's claimed forensic breakthrough?

[Caroline]

Are you really going to take her word for it?

As opposed to your word? 

[John]

My thnking exactly Scripio!!

I also think that David is testing you out with his new forensic evidence posts re the silencer etc just to see if it does indeed stand up to your scrutiny...or others. The letter from JB is held up as....look I'm believed by JB!! What he doesn't realise is that JB's letter is a spratt to catch a mackrel.... I bet everyone who writes to JB or his 'campaigners' receives a letter encouraging them into his fold.

Just looking at the photo of Sheila with the gun one can see this has been staged! Easy now of course, but when the police entered the bedroom after JB had sown the seeds of her suicide in there minds...not so easy! JB is brilliant at twisting facts...look at his police statement. It would take a lot more than a 'letter' from JB to convince me of his innocence!
 I have however wondered if JB set up the murders for someone else to carry out?  JB was so brazen and convinced the police wouldn't suspect him, it also makes sense of him never admitting to the murders because in his mind he didn't do it. The problem with this is JB wouldn't have spent 30 year's in prison without squealing on whoever he paid.. or was to pay. Could this be because it would also confirm his guilt over the murders?

A good post Opal.  I too have considered your last point.  Jeremy could very well have assisted a third party to get access to the farmhouse but in doing so he would be guilty as a joint enterprise participant. That said, I think even he would have had great difficulty in finding a hitman to shoot two children.  In any event, Bamber was effectively skint most of the time so would vhave been unable to pay such a hit in advance.

[John]

If David's alleged forensic breakthrough is based on facts and evidence already in the public domain there is no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't reveal it to scrutiny.  It will save a lot of time at the end of the day because if it doesn't pass our scrutiny here it is hardly going to impress the CCRC let alone the Appeal Court.

Over to you David!

[scipio_usmc]

I don't think NGB will appreciate you using him in this manner. He made it perfectly clear that neither he nor you are experts and that on it's own, it WOULD NOT be enough for an appeal. Keep trying to build yourself up though - a palm print on the bible DOES NOT prove Jeremy innocent.

So his breakthrough claim was that the Bible had a palm print? That is what was suspected from the outset though he denied it to the hilt.  David insisted it was something no one broached before.  Not only was the palm print possibility broached it was debated extensively.  I took the lead in opposing it though Harters was my wingman and David also participated to a degree so feigning ignorance that it was discussed amounts to intentional deception. No wonder he knew I would reject it.     

There are 3 issues in play as I see it:

1) David took an idea that was debated prior and pretended he came up with it himself. Whether or not he did additional exploration the idea itself was not his own as he insisted.

2) In so doing David not only took credit for an idea that he knew was made previously by others including you  but that he knew already was established to be mere speculation.

3) By ignoring the prior debate David was able to ignore the arguments that cast doubt on this claim and declare that his theory was 100% accurate and unable to be challenged.

4) The legal ramifications of this speculation are quite clear- this is totally meaningless from a legal standpoint.  From a legal standpoint it is meaningless not only because it is mere speculation but also because even if true it means nothing. Even if it were for the sake of argument a palm print this would not in any way refute the use of the moderator.  David is so in the tank for Jeremy that he claims things prove things favorable to Jeremy that they do not objectively prove and also elevates speculation to proven fact. While that will suffice in his biased mind it means nothing int he real world.  I prefer to stay in the real world and look at what must be established to objective reasonable triers of fact and to rational judges because there is no way to cherrypick judges who will wear goggles that will falsely make everything appear to exonerate Jeremy.

Clearly on its own this speculation possess no ability to exonerate Jeremy nor is there anything else which this speculation could potentially complement that in combination would exonerate Jeremy. 

[John]

A palm print on a Bible has no significance since it can never be proven when it occurred and in what circumstances.  Like so much so-called evidence it can be faked as were Sheila's fingerprints on the murder weapon.

[Myster]

I believe it's a palm print, Jim, but not as we know it.  Either from June as she was trying to get up out of bed, or deliberately created by Bamber by pushing Sheila's bloodied palm onto the page.

[david1819]

So his breakthrough claim was that the Bible had a palm print? That is what was suspected from the outset though he denied it to the hilt.  David insisted it was something no one broached before.  Not only was the palm print possibility broached it was debated extensively.  I took the lead in opposing it though Harters was my wingman and David also participated to a degree so feigning ignorance that it was discussed amounts to intentional deception. No wonder he knew I would reject it.     

There are 3 issues in play as I see it:

1) David took an idea that was debated prior and pretended he came up with it himself. Whether or not he did additional exploration the idea itself was not his own as he insisted.

2) In so doing David not only took credit for an idea that he knew was made previously by others including you  but that he knew already was established to be mere speculation.

3) By ignoring the prior debate David was able to ignore the arguments that cast doubt on this claim and declare that his theory was 100% accurate and unable to be challenged.

4) The legal ramifications of this speculation are quite clear- this is totally meaningless from a legal standpoint.  From a legal standpoint it is meaningless not only because it is mere speculation but also because even if true it means nothing. Even if it were for the sake of argument a palm print this would not in any way refute the use of the moderator.  David is so in the tank for Jeremy that he claims things prove things favorable to Jeremy that they do not objectively prove and also elevates speculation to proven fact. While that will suffice in his biased mind it means nothing int he real world.  I prefer to stay in the real world and look at what must be established to objective reasonable triers of fact and to rational judges because there is no way to cherrypick judges who will wear goggles that will falsely make everything appear to exonerate Jeremy.

Clearly on its own this speculation possess no ability to exonerate Jeremy nor is there anything else which this speculation could potentially complement that in combination would exonerate Jeremy.

I never confirmed nor denied anything. It was already stated I would not reveal anything unless JB legal want to do it. So How can I give a straight answer to anything.

[david1819]

1) David took an idea that was debated prior and pretended he came up with it himself. Whether or not he did additional exploration the idea itself was not his own as he insisted.

2) In so doing David not only took credit for an idea that he knew was made previously by others including you  but that he knew already was established to be mere speculation.

I reject all such allegations

I haven't taken any ideas nor is my work speculation. I tried something no one else has yet done and it produced a positive factual result

[Holly Goodhead]

I reject all such allegations

I haven't taken any ideas nor is my work speculation. I tried something no one else has yet done and it produced a positive factual result

David I wouldn't mind betting you stole the following 'intellectual property' from myself! 

[david1819]

David I wouldn't mind betting you stole the following 'intellectual property' from myself! 

lol I don't see your name on it  ;)

[Caroline]

I reject all such allegations

I haven't taken any ideas nor is my work speculation. I tried something no one else has yet done and it produced a positive factual result

You can reject what you like but can't deny the basis of your report is the palm print on the bible. Your work actually IS speculation as you're not an expert. It produced 'A' result however, nothing has been confirmed and it could all be just coincidental. Either way, a palm print on the bible doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

[scipio_usmc]

I reject all such allegations

I haven't taken any ideas nor is my work speculation. I tried something no one else has yet done and it produced a positive factual result

You don't seem to comprehend what speculation is.  You also say that Fowler's claims were not speculation but proven fact even though the CCRC rejected it as speculation and the COA upheld the CCRC's dismissal on such basis.

I believe Caroline's assertion that it pertains to an alleged palm print in the Bible.  You don't possess a copy of Sheila's palm prints to try to compare to the mark in the Bible.  Nor do you have the technology to enhance such photo to the degree/clarity necessary to make a comparison to a palm print.  I am 100% positive that your claims are speculation merely regardless of what you choose to characterize them as.   How the CCRC/COA would characterize such is what matters not how you so choose. An effective lawyer will tailor claims to the CCRC/COA in accordance with how they will view things.

[david1819]

your work actually IS speculation as you're not an expert. It produced 'A' result however, nothing has been confirmed

really? nothing has been confirmed? who told you that?

assumptions are not good to go by

Either way, a palm print on the bible doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

I never made such a claim and I am open to possibilities, I have my own prosecution theories however outlandish

[david1819]

You don't seem to comprehend what speculation is.  You also say that Fowler's claims were not speculation but proven fact even though the CCRC rejected it as speculation and the COA upheld the CCRC's dismissal on such basis.

I believe Caroline's assertion that it pertains to an alleged palm print in the Bible.  You don't possess a copy of Sheila's palm prints to try to compare to the mark in the Bible.  Nor do you have the technology to enhance such photo to the degree/clarity necessary to make a comparison to a palm print.  I am 100% positive that your claims are speculation merely regardless of what you choose to characterize them as.   How the CCRC/COA would characterize such is what matters not how you so choose. An effective lawyer will tailor claims to the CCRC/COA in accordance with how they will view things.

[Caroline]

really? nothing has been confirmed? who told you that?

assumptions are not good to go by

I never made such a claim and I am open to possibilities, I have my own prosecution theories however outlandish

It hasn't David because you couldn't help but plaster it on the forum(s).

You did make that claim - you made it to me recently.